Category: Corporate / Commercial Page 1 of 5

Case Commented On: 1401380 Ontario Limited (Wilderness North Air) v Hydro One Remote Communities Inc, 2025 ONCA 827 (CanLII)

PDF Version: Limiting Contractual Liability for Breaching the Duty of Good Faith

The contractual duty to exercise discretion in good faith applies to every contract, regardless of the parties’ intentions; parties cannot exclude the duty altogether. But what if they do not seek to exclude the duty itself, and instead seek only to limit the consequences of breaching it? Is that distinction legally meaningful? And is it permitted?

This post discusses how the duty to perform in good faith endures on both conceptual and practical grounds as long as there is liability for breaching it, even where that liability is contractually limited.

In 1401380 Ontario Limited (Wilderness North Air) v Hydro One Remote Communities Inc, 2025 ONCA 827 (CanLII), the Ontario Court of Appeal decided that parties may limit the scope of their liability for breach of the duty of good faith, and that doing so does not constitute contracting out of the duty itself.

A Mugging on Bay Street

By Bryce Tingle

On October 17, 2025

In Corporate / Commercial, Securities, Tax

By: Bryce C. Tingle KC

Case Commented On: The RRSP Trust of James T. Grenon by its Trustee CIBC Trust Corporation v. Her Majesty the Queen, 2025 FCA 129 (CanLII)

PDF Version: A Mugging on Bay Street

Most corporate lawyers avoid reading tax court decisions. Tax is a pretty specialized practice area, and for non-specialists the entire area of tax law gives off the insalubrious air of a dark alley in an unfamiliar city. Except worse, because in a tax case you know for a fact there is someone down that alley who wants to rob you of your money.

Corporate lawyers should make an exception, however, for the recent decision in The RRSP Trust of James T. Grenon by its Trustee CIBC Trust Corporation v. Her Majesty the Queen (Grenon) by the Federal Court of Appeal. This is because the court finds itself interpreting provincial securities laws in a way that would be very surprising to most non-tax lawyers. In fact, the way the court (i) interprets the term “principal” (found in many private placement exemptions), (ii) the consequences that it suggests follow from imprecise investor representations in subscription agreements, and (iii) the way the court determines what constitutes a “lawful” offering under RRSP rules, all violate long-established securities practice and threaten to destabilize private placements of all kinds.

What Are “Unrelated Assets” When It Comes to Environmental Reclamation Obligations? The Lending Industry Needs to Know

By Jassmine Girgis

On November 15, 2023

In Corporate / Commercial, Creditors’ Remedies, Environmental, Insolvency, Oil & Gas

By: Jassmine Girgis

Case Commented On: Mantle Materials Group, Ltd v Travelers Capital Corp, 2023 ABCA 302 (CanLII)

PDF Version: What Are “Unrelated Assets” When It Comes to Environmental Reclamation Obligations? The Lending Industry Needs to Know

In recent years, the courts have seen many cases dealing with unfunded environmental reclamation obligations. Although these obligations have long raised issues, the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Orphan Well Association v Grant Thornton Ltd, 2019 SCC 5 (CanLII) (“Redwater”) commenced a new era for determining the priority for environmental end-of-life obligations in Canadian insolvencies (see my earlier post on Redwater, Lessons from Redwater: Disregard the AbitibiBowater Test and Legislate Super Priority for the Regulator).

Lifting the Corporate Veil v Personal Liability Under the Oppression Remedy: When Directors Behave Badly, When is Each Remedy Appropriate?

By Jassmine Girgis

On May 16, 2023

In Corporate / Commercial, Remedies

By: Jassmine Girgis

Case commented on: FNF Enterprises Inc v Wag and Train Inc, 2023 ONCA 92 (CanLII)

PDF Version: Lifting the Corporate Veil v Personal Liability Under the Oppression Remedy: When Directors Behave Badly, When is Each Remedy Appropriate?

In FNF Enterprises Inc v Wag and Train Inc, 2023 ONCA 92 (CanLII), the sole shareholder and director of Wag and Train Inc (Wag and Train) had stripped assets from the corporation, causing the company to defeat its creditors. In an action brought by a commercial landlord, the Ontario Court of Appeal declined to lift the corporate veil because the director’s improper conduct was not the source of the corporation’s liability, but it did allow the appellants to pursue the oppression remedy against the director personally.

Fairness and The Corporate Oppression Remedy: What is the Difference Between “Prejudice” and “Unfair Prejudice”?

By Jassmine Girgis

On May 25, 2022

In Corporate / Commercial, Legal Research

By: Jassmine Girgis

Paper Commented On: “Fairness in The Oppression Remedy: How Does Harm Become Unfair?”, 19^th Annual Review of Insolvency Law, 2021 CanLIIDocs 13557

PDF Version: Fairness and The Corporate Oppression Remedy: What is the Difference Between “Prejudice” and “Unfair Prejudice”?

[The National Judicial Institute (NJI) recently held its civil law seminar in Calgary, Alberta, where I participated in a panel on director and officer liability. The following blog captures some of my remarks during that panel, as well as excerpts from a recent paper that formed the basis of those remarks]

People have a strong intuitive sense of fairness – even children sense when an adult has treated them unfairly. Perhaps for this reason, in the context of the corporate oppression remedy, which has fairness as its foundation, spotting oppression in a set of facts can be relatively straightforward. The problem, however, is that while unfairness (and oppression) can be easy to see, why something is unfair or oppressive can be much more difficult to explain. Indeed, oppression remedy jurisprudence often fails on this point – prejudice or harm may be plainly evident on the facts (Kevin P McGuinness, Canadian Business Corporations Law, 3rd ed, vol 3 (Toronto: LexisNexis Canada Inc, 2017) at §21.135), but without guidance the fairness test can seem obscure, and courts sometimes struggle with it. They get the results right, and they give some reasons, but these reasons often do not provide a clear articulation as to what fairness means.